Freiburger v. State
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
THOMAS, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with the majority that the PCR court correctly denied Freiburger relief on the issues he raised concerning **256alleged violations of Brady v. Maryland3 and Crawford v. Washington.4 I also agree with the majority's decision to affirm the PCR court's refusal to grant relief due to trial counsel's alleged failure to use the Parnell Report when cross-examining Lt. Parnell. As to the Hoover letter, I do not dispute that Freiburger's trial counsel had been informed of its existence and that we should not address whether the evidence…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Ard v. CatoeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
- Edwards v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2011
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.